Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHANDIGARH
Before: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JM & Dr. B.R.R.KUMAR, AM
आदेश/ORDER PER DIVA SINGH The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the order dated 06.10.2017 of CIT (A) Shimla pertaining to 2013-14 assessment year 2008-09 on the following grounds : 1. The Ld. Assessing Officer's & Worthy CIT (A) order are contrary to law and facts of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in upholding the addition Rs. 38,68,050/- on account of restriction of deduction, to 25% u/s 80IC of the Act against the Claim of 100%. The assessee claimed 100% deduction on account of substantial expansion undertaken. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in relying on the judgement of Hon'ble ITAT , Chandigarh Bench in the case of Hycron Electronics a Others (ITA No. 798/Chd/2012) which has been reversed by Hon'ble Shimla High Court in the case of M/s Stovekraft India Versus Commissioner of Income Tax 2017 (12) TMI 69 and other related appeals. 4. That the order of Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be quashed on merits only as all the judgements of Hon'ble Chandigarh Tribunal on which the Ld. A.O. & Ld. CIT(A) has based/formed his order has been reversed by Hon'ble Shimla High Court vide a detailed and composite order disposing 44 bunch of appeals vide judgement dated 28/11/2017. 5. That the order of Hon'ble Chandigarh bench of ITAT on the basis of which the cases were reopened never attained finality since the institution of appeal before Hon'ble High Court, and it's operation was completely stand still on stay imposed by the Hon'ble High Court. 6. That the order of A/Y 2014-15 on the same set of facts and issue under consideration has been decided in favour of assessee by the Ld. CIT(A) and
ITA 529/CHD/2018 A.Y.2013-14 Page 2 of 3
deduction @ 100% has been restored by reversing the order of Id. A.O. 2. At the time of hearing, no one was present on behalf of the assessee. The appeal was passed over. In the second round also, the assessee remained unrepresented. The record shows that appeal had earlier come up for hearing on 12.07.2018 wherein the assessee had relied upon the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s Stove Craft India Versus CIT-V and others in ITA 20 to 24/2015. However, since before passing of the order, the position of law was finally settled by the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Classic Binding Industries (2018) 96 taxmann.com 405 (S.C) and the issue was concluded against the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal was re-fixed for clarification on 29.08.2018 with the following noting : “Adjournment application of the ld. AR was rejected as the issue was covered in favour of assessee by the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Stove Craft. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Classic Binding Industries (2018) taxmann.com 405(S.C)The said decision is no longer good law. Accordingly the appeal is being released for adjudication afresh. Registry to fix the same before a regular Bench on 27th Sept.,2018. Sd/- Sd/- (Dr.B.R.R.Kumar) ( Diva Singh ) Accountant Member Judicial Member”
It is seen that notice has been sent to the assessee and the assessee 3. has still chosen to remain unrepresented. Accordingly, after hearing ld. DR it was deemed appropriate to proceed with the present appeal ex-parte qua the assessee appellant on merits. The relevant facts of the case as available on record are that the 4. assessee claimed deduction u/s 80IC of the Act @ 100% of its eligible profits. Considering the facts that the assessee had started its business activities/operations on 15.03.2008 and the initial assessment year for claim of deduction u/s 80IC of the Act had been taken as 2008-09 assessment year, it was noticed that the assessee had already claimed deduction u/s 80IC of the Act @ 100% for a five year period from 2008-09 to 2012-13 assessment year. The year under consideration being the sixth year and the assessee having claimed substantial expansion in 2011-12 assessment year was held to be not eligible for claim of 100% deduction of its eligible profits and it was restricted to 25% relying upon order dated ITA 798/CHD/2012 in Hycron Electronics V ITO dated 27.05.2015. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) also failed on
ITA 529/CHD/2018 A.Y.2013-14 Page 3 of 3
account of this fact. In terms of the decision of the jurisdictional High Court as referred to in ground 4 by the assessee in the present appeal, the decision of the Chandigarh Bench in the case of Hycron Electronics V ITO (supra) was over ruled by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s Stovecraft India. However, said position has been set at rest by the Apex Court in the case of M/s Classic Binding Industries (2018) taxmann.com 405(S.C) wherein the issue as noted therein has been concluded against the assessee. Accordingly, respectfully following the judicial precedent, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 5. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 09.10. 2018.
Sd/- Sd/- ( डा. बी.आर.आर. कुमार) (�दवा �संह ) (Dr. B.R.R. KUMAR) (DIVA SINGH) लेखा सद�य/ Accountant Member �या�यक सद�य/Judicial Member “पूनम” आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant - 1. ��यथ�/ The Respondent - 2. आयकर आयु�त/ CIT 3. आयकर आयु�त (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य आ�धकरण, च�डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड� फाईल/ Guard File 6. 7. आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar ITAT,Chandigarh.